Lose Iraq to Win an Election?
February 16, 2007
The website politico.com, reported this on Wednesday: “top house Democrats, working in concert with anti-war groups, have decided against using Congressional power to force a quick end to U.S. involvement in Iraq and instead will pursue a slow-bleed strategy designed to gradually limit the administration’s options.”
This will be lead by fervent anti-war Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania. House Democrats want to limit the increase in American troops the president thinks are necessary to stabilize Iraq. But what they are really pursuing – and there is no other way to say it – is failure. They would prefer the United States be defeated in Iraq so they might capture the White House in 2008. What else could they mean by a “slow-bleed” strategy? They apparently think that pulling the troops out immediately might harm them politically, but to slowly-bleed the process would make it look like a presidential and Republican failure.
This is pathetic, especially when you consider our enemies will regard it as a victory for them and will press ahead with new attacks. Why shouldn’t they when so many members of Congress are too weak to fight them?
Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist based in Washington, D.C.
Originally published February 16, 2007.
